Marriage

[AdrocK48]

I have been speaking with a mate of mine lately about marriage and what that looks like and who can/cant get married.
the question of whether or not someone who is divorced due to unfaithfulness inside the marriage is allowed to get remarried or must they stay unmarried?
what does everyone think?

 

[St_Worm2]

I have been speaking with a mate of mine lately about marriage and what that looks like and who can/cant get married.
the question of whether or not someone who is divorced due to unfaithfulness inside the marriage is allowed to get remarried or must they stay unmarried?
what does everyone think?

The Bible seems fairly clear to me that the 'innocent' spouse is permitted to remarry when adultery is the cause for the divorce. Matthew 19:9 states:

"Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Yours and His,
David

 

[chosenpath]

Adrock48,
Read all of Proverbs 7. For both Men and Women it is important. Read also Matthew 5:27:32. Jesus clearly indicates that it's not just the outward action of adultrey but also whats in the heart and God can read our hearts. We have to be honest with ourselves. Women especially (Matthew 5:32) have to be careful when we remarry because we can cause others to sin. We are accountable to ourselves and others when we gain knowlege of God's word (Ezekiel 3:17-21 and 1Timothy 4:11-16).

All God's Blessings,
Chosenpath

 

[angelmom01]

Anyone who is properly divorced (for any reason) is free to remarry. Otherwise Moses would not have commanded that those men who were putting away their wives (without divorcing them) were to give them a bill of divorcement.

 

[St_Worm2]

Anyone who is properly divorced (for any reason) is free to remarry. Otherwise Moses would not have commanded that those men who were putting away their wives (without divorcing them) were to give them a bill of divorcement.

Hi AngelMom, you make an interesting argument, but how do you reconcile your position with what the Lord has to say here in Matthew?

Some Pharisees came to Him to test Him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," He replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female', and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ​

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:3-9​

​

 

[angelmom01]

Hi AngelMom, you make an interesting argument, but how do you reconcile your position with what the Lord has to say here in Matthew?

Some Pharisees came to Him to test Him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," He replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female', and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ​

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:3-9​

​

Hi DaLeKo,

Your translation has the word "divorce" in verse 3, but the word in the Greek text, according to Strong's, is apoluō and is translated "put way" in the KJV and a few other translations.

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Remember that the Pharisees were trying to "tempt" Jesus with their question. They were not asking Jesus about divorce, but about men putting away their wives for any reason and that is what He responded to.

Mat 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

THEN, the Pharisees asked: "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

.... but the question was still about men putting away their wives and that is what Jesus responded to:

Mat 19:8-9 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Moses suffered the men to put away their wives for any reason even before he commanded them to begin giving them a bill of divorcement so that they were free to remarry without committing adultery (the penalty for which was death).

Jesus did not reverse this, or say that Moses did anything wrong in commanding the men to divorce their wives if they were going to put them away for reasons other than fornication. He simply addressed the question that the Pharisees asked and that was about men "putting away" their wives for any reason.

If they were one and the same things (ie putting away = divorce) then what need would their have been to differentiate between who did or did not have "a writing (or bill) of divorcement"?

 

[tqpix]

Hi DaLeKo,

Your translation has the word "divorce" in verse 3, but the word in the Greek text, according to Strong's, is apoluō and is translated "put way" in the KJV and a few other translations.

Remember that the Pharisees were trying to "tempt" Jesus with their question. They were not asking Jesus about divorce, but about men putting away their wives for any reason and that is what He responded to.

THEN, the Pharisees asked: "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

.... but the question was still about men putting away their wives and that is what Jesus responded to:

Moses suffered the men to put away their wives for any reason even before he commanded them to begin giving them a bill of divorcement so that they were free to remarry without committing adultery (the penalty for which was death).

Jesus did not reverse this, or say that Moses did anything wrong in commanding the men to divorce their wives if they were going to put them away for reasons other than fornication. He simply addressed the question that the Pharisees asked and that was about men "putting away" their wives for any reason.

If they were one and the same things (ie putting away = divorce) then what need would their have been to differentiate between who did or did not have "a writing (or bill) of divorcement"?

Bravo. Well said. Divorce is not a sin, and post-divorce marriage is not a sin.

I just like to add another point. The exception clause concerning adultery is not for divorce but for putting away:

A man who puts away his wife and did not give her a bill of divorcement can remarry if the wife committed adultery.

 

[angelmom01]

Bravo. Well said. Divorce is not a sin, and post-divorce marriage is not a sin.

I just like to add another point. The exception clause concerning adultery is not for divorce but for putting away:

A man who puts away his wife and did not give her a bill of divorcement can remarry if the wife committed adultery.

Exactly, a bill of divorcement was not required (at the time, or "under the law") for adultery (the penalty under the law for adultery was death, not divorce ).

Today, we might want to get a divorce even for adultery.

 

[St_Worm2]

Bravo. Well said. Divorce is not a sin, and post-divorce marriage is not a sin.

Hi Tqpix, I have a RC friend who divorced her husband (for adultery), but before she could get remarried as a Roman Catholic, she was required to get an annulment on top of being divorced. This, as best I understand it, means that we're supposed to treat her first marriage as more than just dissolved or void, we're to consider it as if it never happened.

If (as you state) getting married again following a divorce is not considered a sin, then why is an annulment of the first marriage a requirement by your church before taking another wife or husband?

BTW, I fully admit to being a Protestant with limited knowledge of your church's doctrine and practices, and in some cases, like this one, have only word of mouth information to go on, so please let me know if I am missing the Roman Catholic point here somehow

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - Angelmom, I'm sorry for never responding to your post. I will do so tomorrow if possible (being home alone and sick has given me a bit more time than I usually have for this sort of thing)